I am now two-thirds of the way through an IRISS project exploring the links between evidence and innovation in the context of Scotland\u2019s social services.\u00a0 Arguably, one of the most important parallels to have emerged so far is that both evidence and innovation are surrounded by voluminous, and at times contradictory, literatures.\u00a0 In particular, diverse definitions and models have been developed to describe and explain these terms, and how they operate in organisational contexts.<\/p>\n
In relation to evidence-based approaches, there is considerable debate surrounding two questions: How do policy-makers and social service practitioners use evidence, and what counts as \u2018good\u2019 evidence in this context?\u00a0 In searching the extensive terrain of these debate we might start with Weiss\u2019 (1979) influential seven-fold typology of evidence use, and trace its development into the three-fold model presented by Amara et al (2004) where research use is said to be either instrumental, conceptual or ideological.\u00a0 In terms of gauging what counts as \u2018good\u2019 evidence, we might want to engage in on-going debates concerning the research design hierarchy in efficacy and evaluation research (see my previous blog post<\/a>), or to broaden our remit and consider the value of practitioner and service-user experiences as important forms of evidence (Collins and Daly, 2011).<\/p>\n Likewise, our attempts to \u2018pin down\u2019 innovation may lead us in diverse and sometimes contradictory directions.\u00a0 We might find the idea of an innovation spectrum a useful way to delineate radical from incremental innovation, or we might enjoy Kirby Ferguson\u2019s refreshing view that \u2018everything is a remix<\/a>\u2019.\u00a0 We might want to focus on public sector orientated debates surrounding the many perceived barriers to innovative policy and practice in this context, (Burke, Morris & McGarrigle, 2012) or see what transferrable lessons we can learn from a range of other contexts and sectors including technology, music and international development (Ted, The Creative Spark Playlist, 2013<\/a>).<\/p>\n Whichever route we choose to go down (and the above is just a taster of the possibilities available to us) what has become clear during the evidence and innovation project at IRISS is that how we define and conceptualise evidence and innovation influences the relationship(s) we perceive between them.\u00a0 I will use one example as an illustration here.<\/p>\n In evidence-based approaches, evidence is sometimes viewed in an instrumental way.\u00a0 This is where evidence is seen as the product of research and as a means to an end.\u00a0 It is a piece of knowledge or information that is of direct practical use, telling us whether or not a policy or practice is capable of achieving a particular outcome (Amara et al, 2004, p. 76). This is the view of evidence which appears to underpin the \u2018What Works\u2019 agenda, viewed most recently in the discourse of the What Works Centres<\/a>.\u00a0 There are parallels with Weiss\u2019 (1979) Knowledge-driven Model and Problem-solving Model (p. 427-8), where evidence is the \u201cfruit\u201d of research, from which \u201cnew policies emerge\u201d (p. 426).<\/p>\n The appeal of this view of evidence is its apparent simplicity, rationality and pragmatism.\u00a0 It implies that evidence is a bounded and useful entity, which can be directly used to guide decision-making.\u00a0 Arguably, this fits with the move to create more accountable, transparent and rigorous public and social services throughout the UK since the 1980s (Munro, 2004). This model may better lend itself to the straightforward and transparent defensibility of decisions, enabling policy-makers and practitioners to claim\u00a0 \u2018the evidence told us this, so we did this\u2019.\u00a0 In the current context of scrutinised public spending, this may be a valued trait.<\/p>\n It is also perceived as a way to make social services, such as social work, more able to articulate what they do and more able to defend practice and decisions in the face of criticism. \u00a0There is a sense that, what would be required here would be a commitment to using those methods and practices that have been \u2018proven\u2019 to \u2018work\u2019, so that social workers can clearly articulate the logical and objective grounds for their decision making if something goes wrong.\u00a0 However, some have suggested that, taken to its logical conclusion, this implies that there is one right way to do something, which could lead to the standardising of, or a \u201ccookbook\u2019 approach to, social work (Otto & Ziegler, 2008, p.\u00a0 273; Forrester, 2010<\/a>).<\/p>\n This is an interesting debate in itself, but what we are concerned with here is the impact of adopting this instrumental view of evidence when considering the relationship between evidence and innovation.\u00a0 Theoretically, there may be a tension between the use of evidence as a means of standardising, accounting for, and defending social service practice, and the desire to boost innovation in this context.\u00a0 These dual aims may sit together rather awkwardly given research that suggests that social service innovation is stifled in rigid, highly standardised and risk-averse contexts (Brown, 2010; Munro, 2011).\u00a0 This may be particularly true if it is radical and transformative innovation that is being sought, as it is in the context of Scottish social service reform (The Scottish \u00a0Government, 2011<\/a>).<\/p>\n So, when evidence is defined instrumentally, it may be in tension with innovation in a social service context.\u00a0 In contrast, what happens if we adopt Weiss\u2019 (1979) \u2018enlightenment\u2019 view of how evidence is used, which has been referred to elsewhere as the \u2018conceptual\u2019 use of research (Amara et al, 2004)?\u00a0 What is being referred to here is the role evidence plays in influencing what is on the policy agenda and how it is framed, conceptualised and discussed.\u00a0 Thus it is;<\/p>\n the concepts and theoretical perspectives that social science research has engendered that permeate the policy-making process… the imagery is that of social science generalizations and orientations percolating through informed publics and coming to shape the way in which people think about social issues (Weiss, 1979, p. 429).<\/i><\/p>\n So research and evidence can stimulate ideas and curiosity, which can lead to a reframing of the agenda and new ways of understanding the world, which, in turn, may suggest new ways of\u00a0 \u201cintervening and changing the world\u201d (Nutley et al, 2003, p. 130; Gough, 2013, p. 163).\u00a0 Adopting this conceptualisation of evidence-use may, theoretically, mean that evidence and innovation are mutually reinforcing agendas.\u00a0 Both are about engaging with ongoing processes of reframing, rethinking and rearticulating as part of a wider process of change and reform.<\/p>\n The aim here has been to highlight the importance of spending time unraveling the definition, conceptualisation and usage of the key terms of this project, in order to develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between evidence and innovation.\u00a0 It also reinforces the importance of considering one reform agenda (e.g. innovation) in the context of other, simultaneous reform agendas (e.g. evidence-based approaches).\u00a0 As parallel reform discourses, evidence and innovation may be compared to dance partners*. They share a space and thus from time to time they will inevitably cross paths and step on one another\u2019s toes. However, the particular dances they perform, and the extent to which they move as one or trip one another up, will, to some extent, be dictated by the ways they are discussed, defined, understood and operationalised by all those involved.<\/p>\n * Thanks to my colleague, Rhiann, for this helpful metaphor.<\/p>\n References:<\/b><\/p>\n Amara, N; Ouimet, M; Lndry, R (2004) New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies, Science Communication<\/i>, 26:75, pp. 75-106.<\/p>\n Brown, L (2010) Balancing Risk and Innovation to Improve Social Work Practice, British Journal of Social Work<\/i>, 40(4), pp. 1211-1228.<\/p>\n Burke, K; Morris, K; McGarrigle, L (2012) An Introductory Guide to Implementation<\/i>, Dublin: Centre for Effective Services.\u00a0http:\/\/www.effectiveservices.org\/implementation\/<\/a><\/p>\n Collins, E & Daly, E (2011) Decision making and social work in Scotland: The role of evidence and practice wisdom<\/i>, Glasgow: IRISS.<\/p>\n Gough, D (2013) Theories, perspectives and research use, Evidence & Policy<\/i>, 9:2, pp. 163-4.<\/p>\n Munro, E (2004) The impact of audit on social work practice, British Journal of Social Work<\/i>, 34(8), pp. 1073-1095.<\/p>\n Munro, E (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report<\/i>, London: Department for Education.<\/p>\n Nutley, S; Walter, I; Davies, H (2003) From Knowing to Doing, Evaluation<\/i>, 9(2), pp. 125-148.<\/p>\n Otto, H & Ziegler, H (2008) The Notion of Causal Impact in Evidence-Based Social Work: An Introduction to the Special Issue on What Works? Research on Social Work Practice<\/i>, 18:4, pp. 273-277.<\/p>\n Weiss, C (1979) The Many Meanings of Research Utilization, Public Administration Review<\/i>, September\/October, pp. 426-431.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I am now two-thirds of the way through an IRISS project exploring the links between evidence and innovation in the context of Scotland\u2019s social services.\u00a0 Arguably, one of the most important parallels to have emerged so far is that both evidence and innovation are surrounded by voluminous, and at times contradictory, literatures.\u00a0 In particular, diverse … Continue reading “Evidence and Innovation: dance, dance whatever you may be…”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":62,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/62"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/evidenceandpractice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}